It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plane Crash Video from Inside Cockpit

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 

Ok, not a full stall. Call it a mush-in. The aircraft wasn't flying.
Too heavy, too slow. No room to drop the nose.
No "air pocket". Pilot error. Crunch.


Yeah i guess we completly agree about that.




No "air pocket". Pilot error.


Absolutely




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   





There is a prelim report, but the final hasn't been completed yet.

Incident date: 30 June 2012

kathrynaviationnews.com...
edit on 9-8-2012 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 



Interesting.

There's a lot of short airstrips up in the mountains in Idaho, some of them rather challenging.

Mountain flying course should be made mandatory even for experienced pilots flying there (if it isn't already).



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Stanley Airport: June 30, 2012
Airport altitude: 6,400'
Runway 17/35: 4,300'

Conditions at 13:51
Temp: 79ºF
Altimeter: 29.85 in
Dew Point: 26.1ºF
Wind: S 9.2mph


Payload capacity for a Stinson 108-3 @ 50% fuel: 848# at sea level (average 212# per person)

Density altitude at time of crash: 9,235'
They had to be close to, if not over, max weight.


Arhets insisted the plane was not overloaded, as they’d already flown on that day once before and changed nothing.
kathrynaviationnews.com...
Except the weather. At 10:51 the density altitude was 8,218'








edit on 8/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


3 people in a 4 place plane
i dont think they were overweight
the pilot was flying way to low and didnt even try to go up
then he caught a empty air pocket while flying near the tree tops



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by Ben81

3 people in a 4 place plane
No.

The certified commercial pilot sustained serious injuries, and the three passengers sustained minor injuries.
kathrynaviationnews.com...


he caught a empty air pocket
There is no such thing as "a empty air pocket".


edit on 8/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


the plane maybe caught a downwind swirl before the plane crash .. its plausible
but the main mistake the pilot did was not going up
after the take off he never went up more then the trees heads
do you agree ?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


No he didn't hit a downdraft, he wasn't able to climb. There wasn't enough lift because of low air density and a heavy aft load. He should have aborted the takeoff around the 0:50 mark as was said before. It was pretty obvious at that point the plane didn't want to fly today and there was an incline ahead and no chance to climb or turn out of it in time so down they went. And all that for lunch.
edit on 9/8/12 by Darce because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

No I do not agree.

No downdraft.

The pilot could not "go up". He was trying to but could not. His mistake was leaving the ground with too much weight.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Posters have alluded to this, but the issue is "density altitude" which is the effective density of the atmosphere. We all know that the air gets thinner the higher up we go. A high temperature makes the atmosphere thinner. A lower temperature makes the atmosphere thicker. On a crisp cold day at sea level, the density altitude can actually be lower than sea level. This enhances the performance of an aircraft. It can climb faster, for example, make sharper turns, etc.

I used to have an ex-army buddy who flew helicopters in Nam. He got busted for smuggling drugs in "Operation Star Trek" which took place after Spiro Agnew's daughter got busted. They used low-level radar to capture my buddy, who was flying low from Mexico. He tried to escape in a fuel truck. Didn't make it, and they took his license away for a year. He had an airplane. I had a pilot's license, but no plane, so he could fly his own plane if I was in it. Win-Win. So he'd call me up and say, "Density altitude is below sea level!" and we'd meet at the airport.

Now couple a hot day with a high altitude to begin with, say 5,000 feet. It takes a LOT longer to take off because your aircraft perfomance is so poor in the thin atmosphere. You can see this on their takeoff roll which seems to take forever. They never really do get very high before they are over the trees. I agree he should have aborted the take off run.

There really are lots of updrafts and downdrafts in mountinous terrain like that. You have to be specially trained if you fly around mountaisn. I suspect he did stall, but it's not out of the question that he hit a downdraft. I'm sure we've all experienced a sudden drop in altitude when flying commercially. Regardless, this guy was not a competent pilot.
edit on 8/9/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Too hot and heavy for the performance of the aircraft. He was flying too low, whether due to weight or poor engine to power ratio (EPR)

Essentially if he pulled the nose up he would stall. so he lowered it to increase airspeed, to increase lift, This is a trade off with altitude. if the trees had not been there he may have made it.

Glad they all survived though.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I just watched the take off run again. It was insanely long. Normally any aircraft should not take more than 30 seconds to hit V1. the take of run is almost 1 min, with a bounce in the middle. before he gets to V2, to Vmo.

Suggests to me he was grossly overweight, or underpowered.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ben81
 

No I do not agree.

No downdraft.

The pilot could not "go up". He was trying to but could not. His mistake was leaving the ground with too much weight.


i dont believe he was to heavy to fly higher
it look like he wanted to impress the 2 young guy with him by flying low
both passenger = 300 pounds
the pilot i say around 200 pounds
= 500 pounds

with at least 200 pounds of material
= 700

a small airplane can carry up to 850 pounds in total not more

conclusion : the weight was not an issue here
the pilot took unecessary risks and it cost him his plane
there is a lot of wind to 70 feets in the air
it take only one big swirl to move the plane down 1 meter in an instant
if your to low and there is trees everywhere .. the pilot wont have enought time to react

do you agree now ?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


do you agree now ?

No.

You are ignoring density altitude. Something the pilot seems to have done as well. Weight was an issue. The plane could have carried a payload of about 750 to 900 pounds (at sea level) depending on how much fuel it had. The plane was not at sea level. The plane was trying to takeoff at the equivalent of 9,235 feet.


there is a lot of wind to 70 feets in the air

Sometimes. Not that day. At the time of the crash there wasn't much wind at all ( < 10 mph). There was no indication that there was any turbulence. www.abovetopsecret.com...


Do you know anything about flying an airplane? Have you ever had your hands on the controls of an airplane? This kind of accident is not at all uncommon.

Watch and learn.



edit on 8/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


thanks for the video
the guy speaking make a few good points

why the pilot didnt knew about this density
he should know better

i think its more the pilot faults then mother nature
do you agree now ?


plz say yes



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

Yes. You finally got it right.
The plane was too heavy. He should not have tried to takeoff.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ben81
 

Yes. You finally got it right.
The plane was too heavy. He should not have tried to takeoff.


with the density, altitude and a old plane
the accumulation of important details missed by the pilot
resulted in a bad chain of event that could have costed their life with this huge accident
lucky for them that they hit trees
in the water or in a city it would have probably made victims

this pilot will not fly planes anymore
if the FAA that give flying permit think he is to dangerous and to irresponsible

another thing the pilot wouldnt have a broken jaw if he was in a car
they should put airbags for the front seats



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


You can't ignore density altitude. All you have to do to see how it affects a plane is watch how they operate in the Middle East. An E-8 operating in the US can carry enough fuel to take off and fly its entire mission without refueling. The same E-8, on the same mission, in the Middle East has to refuel immediately after take off, to carry enough fuel to complete the mission. The only difference between the two aircraft is the density altitude.

A few years ago, an E-8 that had been operated for months in the US departed from a base in the UAE. No fuel work had been performed on the aircraft since it had come out of depot level maintenance. During the in flight refueling after take off, the wing fuel tanks ruptured and blew holes in the wings, almost causing the loss of the aircraft and crew. The problem hadn't happened prior, because the aircraft hadn't needed to take on a large quantity of fuel until it was flying out of the Middle East, and density altitude came in to play.

Density altitude is exactly what came in to play in this accident. He didn't have enough power to climb, and once he came out of ground effect they were doomed, no matter what he did, short of landing again and dropping at least one person off, and picking them up later.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ben81
 

Yes. You finally got it right.
The plane was too heavy. He should not have tried to takeoff.


with the density, altitude and a old plane
the accumulation of important details missed by the pilot
resulted in a bad chain of event that could have costed their life with this huge accident
lucky for them that they hit trees
in the water or in a city it would have probably made victims

this pilot will not fly planes anymore
if the FAA that give flying permit think he is to dangerous and to irresponsible

another thing the pilot wouldnt have a broken jaw if he was in a car
they should put airbags for the front seats


Can you please explain for not just me but many others who are curious why you won't concede that Phage is right? If you finally agree with him why can't you just say it instead of twisting words?

What you have done here is made people question you, not this but every topic you seem to be passionate about is now in question.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bigern
 


What are you talking about ?


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ben81
 

Yes. You finally got it right.
The plane was too heavy. He should not have tried to takeoff.


I got it right from the start
it was the pilot faults

thats what i was trying to let the others know
are you telling me im wrong ?

please provide some valid arguments if you think otherwise
edit on 8/10/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join